Comments

Kier just signed up to the new transgender guidelines, along with the likes of RLB and Lisa Nandy, and I believe all of the candidates for leader and deputy.

These guidelines means women's rights groups are now labelled as hate groups, which is worrying, not only as a woman, but personally as a Labour supporter and someone who is wholeheartedly anti Tory, I don't see how they can ever be elected on this as many women are now leaving the party.

They actually don't. It will just target the real bigots but I can see it opening up issues.

The whole non binary debate has a very long way to go and obviously a debate about how to safeguard will be part of that.

Storm in a teacup imo. I find myself agreeing a bit with this

@PatrickStrud
"We're not transphobic, we just think you're a danger to children, women, society, lesbians, gay men, feminism, yourselves, and should be excluded from everywhere we decide you shouldn't be, and should be denied treatment, demonised, pathologised, ridiculed + debated endlessly."

Also Thornberry and Starmer haven't actually signed up to it, only Nandy and Long Bailey.

8. Organise and fight against transphobic organisations such as Women's Place UK, LGB Alliance and other trans-exclusionist hate groups.

What about this doesn't label them a hate group? It's called a hate group right there, signing up and agreeing to that is saying it's a hate group.

As to the quotes, I don't see anyone calling trans people a danger to everyone or demonising them, but these rules open women's spaces up to potential abuses everywhere, and to deny that is quite strange.

If they are targeting another minority group for being a minority that would class as hate but like I said, the whole debate has a long way to go. It will be 10 years at least before anything like that becomes law and there would be many changes made to it before we got to that.

I also think you've confused LCTR Labour. and LGBT Labour. Its LCTR pushing this, neither Starmer or Thornberry as far as I am aware have signed up to this.

Having now searched high and low I cannot find anything saying Starmer has signed up to what the LCTR wanted. Do we have a link? he did agree with LGBT Labour's pledges earlier but that is a different group entirely.

In other news, Thornberry has 24 hours to get 5 more CLP nominations and she gets a place on the ballot.

I hope she makes it. I don't always agree with her but I admire her fighting spirit and determination. Some say that Labour can't win with Starmer as leader because he's too bland - well, love her or hate her, Emily Thornberry has a big personality and could be exactly what Labour needs to counter the Johnson effect and to break through the intense media abuse whoever's the next leader will be subject to.

I never really see Starmer as being bland. I think this is an unfair tag. What he is, is sensible and level headed. A statesman opposite Johnson's buffoon act. Whether Starmer can use that to lure voters remains to be seen but he will have 4 years and that is more than enough time for us to see his personality.

I hope Thornberry makes the final ballot too. I hope she bags the Home Sec role in the new shadow cabinet as well.

I agree it's a bit unfair, though he does seem a little wooden to me at times. I was just reading a long article about him and apparently he's actually quite funny and entertaining in real life but has trouble showing that side of himself in public (but is working on it).

Having now searched high and low I cannot find anything saying Starmer has signed up to what the LCTR wanted. Do we have a link? he did agree with LGBT Labour's pledges earlier but that is a different group entirely.

In other news, Thornberry has 24 hours to get 5 more CLP nominations and she gets a place on the ballot.

I hope she makes it. I don't always agree with her but I admire her fighting spirit and determination. Some say that Labour can't win with Starmer as leader because he's too bland - well, love her or hate her, Emily Thornberry has a big personality and could be exactly what Labour needs to counter the Johnson effect and to break through the intense media abuse whoever's the next leader will be subject to.

I really like her, but she'll never get a win for Labour as they'll never forget what she said many, many years ago. It's similar to how many people will say they don't like Andy Murray because of what he said about the England football team a decade ago and it was a joke. People on the whole only take that small soundbite.headline, and that's all they see when they think of a person.

Having now searched high and low I cannot find anything saying Starmer has signed up to what the LCTR wanted. Do we have a link? he did agree with LGBT Labour's pledges earlier but that is a different group entirely.

In other news, Thornberry has 24 hours to get 5 more CLP nominations and she gets a place on the ballot.

I hope she makes it. I don't always agree with her but I admire her fighting spirit and determination. Some say that Labour can't win with Starmer as leader because he's too bland - well, love her or hate her, Emily Thornberry has a big personality and could be exactly what Labour needs to counter the Johnson effect and to break through the intense media abuse whoever's the next leader will be subject to.

I never really see Starmer as being bland. I think this is an unfair tag. What he is, is sensible and level headed. A statesman opposite Johnson's buffoon act. Whether Starmer can use that to lure voters remains to be seen but he will have 4 years and that is more than enough time for us to see his personality.

I hope Thornberry makes the final ballot too. I hope she bags the Home Sec role in the new shadow cabinet as well.

I agree it's a bit unfair, though he does seem a little wooden to me at times. I was just reading a long article about him and apparently he's actually quite funny and entertaining in real life but has trouble showing that side of himself in public (but is working on it).

Mr Darcy from Bridget Jones Dairy is based on him so obviously there is a side to him we haven't yet seen. That's some claim to fame.

Kier just signed up to the new transgender guidelines, along with the likes of RLB and Lisa Nandy, and I believe all of the candidates for leader and deputy.

These guidelines means women's rights groups are now labelled as hate groups, which is worrying, not only as a woman, but personally as a Labour supporter and someone who is wholeheartedly anti Tory, I don't see how they can ever be elected on this as many women are now leaving the party.

They actually don't. It will just target the real bigots but I can see it opening up issues.

The whole non binary debate has a very long way to go and obviously a debate about how to safeguard will be part of that.

Storm in a teacup imo. I find myself agreeing a bit with this

@PatrickStrud
"We're not transphobic, we just think you're a danger to children, women, society, lesbians, gay men, feminism, yourselves, and should be excluded from everywhere we decide you shouldn't be, and should be denied treatment, demonised, pathologised, ridiculed + debated endlessly."

Also Thornberry and Starmer haven't actually signed up to it, only Nandy and Long Bailey.

8. Organise and fight against transphobic organisations such as Women's Place UK, LGB Alliance and other trans-exclusionist hate groups.

What about this doesn't label them a hate group? It's called a hate group right there, signing up and agreeing to that is saying it's a hate group.

As to the quotes, I don't see anyone calling trans people a danger to everyone or demonising them, but these rules open women's spaces up to potential abuses everywhere, and to deny that is quite strange.

If they are targeting another minority group for being a minority that would class as hate but like I said, the whole debate has a long way to go. It will be 10 years at least before anything like that becomes law and there would be many changes made to it before we got to that.

I also think you've confused LCTR Labour. and LGBT Labour. Its LCTR pushing this, neither Starmer or Thornberry as far as I am aware have signed up to this.

They don't target a minority group tough, they just advocate for women's rights, so it's hard to define that as hate. I don't think it's just it being in law though, it's what it says that they've signed this that calls a women's rights group a hate group and who exactly they are pushing under a bus.

From what I've seen Emily Thornberry signed it last night as she put it on her Twitter. Kier hasn't, he has signed another one, which makes it seem as if he is signing the original one.

They include increasing income tax for the top 5% and reversing corporation tax cuts; scrapping tuition fees; public ownership of rail, mail, energy and water; regional investment banks; scrapping Universal Credit; commitment to the Green New Deal.

To that list we should add his Brexit position at the General Election. AKA the Brexit position of the Labour Party. And his recent statement that he would re-introduce Free Movement if and when he became Prime Minister.

Surely a group of posters (current dealing with chronic shyness) will soon be telling us that Starmer is Continuity Corbyn?
Or that Starmer "lost the argument" in December 2019.
The second of these would be premature.
We cannot say "who was right and who was wrong" until we know who was right and who was wrong.

We should know soon. We should know early next year how the Cummings strategy (to be fair, brilliantly executed) to Get Brexit Done and to Make All of You Poorer, by borrowing the votes of millions of Leavers, will impact the UK.
There is no particular rush for people in Redcar or Sedgefield to figure out "who was right and who was wrong" as the impact of leaving the Eu pans out.

Starmer has been clever in indicating that he accepts the result without backtracking on his insistence that the only way out of David Cameron's Mess was Brexino. (Or Remain). He should not backtrack on his Brexit position.
He is clever enough to understand that counting and being right are not the same thing.

It's worrying they have all signed up to call this group a hate group,it's helped many women who have been violently raped and abused. I've first hand experience of the great work they do and how much they have helped so many women.

Will it be labelled as a hate group if it straightforwardly disagrees, campaigns and advocates?

It's worrying they have all signed up to call this group a hate group,it's helped many women who have been violently raped and abused. I've first hand experience of the great work they do and how much they have helped so many women.

Will it be labelled as a hate group if it straightforwardly disagrees, campaigns and advocates?

I see now you've answered this further on with item 8 from the list of 10.

Kier just signed up to the new transgender guidelines, along with the likes of RLB and Lisa Nandy, and I believe all of the candidates for leader and deputy.

These guidelines means women's rights groups are now labelled as hate groups, which is worrying, not only as a woman, but personally as a Labour supporter and someone who is wholeheartedly anti Tory, I don't see how they can ever be elected on this as many women are now leaving the party.

They actually don't. It will just target the real bigots but I can see it opening up issues.

The whole non binary debate has a very long way to go and obviously a debate about how to safeguard will be part of that.

Storm in a teacup imo. I find myself agreeing a bit with this

@PatrickStrud
"We're not transphobic, we just think you're a danger to children, women, society, lesbians, gay men, feminism, yourselves, and should be excluded from everywhere we decide you shouldn't be, and should be denied treatment, demonised, pathologised, ridiculed + debated endlessly."

Also Thornberry and Starmer haven't actually signed up to it, only Nandy and Long Bailey.

8. Organise and fight against transphobic organisations such as Women's Place UK, LGB Alliance and other trans-exclusionist hate groups.

What about this doesn't label them a hate group? It's called a hate group right there, signing up and agreeing to that is saying it's a hate group.

As to the quotes, I don't see anyone calling trans people a danger to everyone or demonising them, but these rules open women's spaces up to potential abuses everywhere, and to deny that is quite strange.

If they are targeting another minority group for being a minority that would class as hate but like I said, the whole debate has a long way to go. It will be 10 years at least before anything like that becomes law and there would be many changes made to it before we got to that.

I also think you've confused LCTR Labour. and LGBT Labour. Its LCTR pushing this, neither Starmer or Thornberry as far as I am aware have signed up to this.

They don't target a minority group tough, they just advocate for women's rights, so it's hard to define that as hate. I don't think it's just it being in law though, it's what it says that they've signed this that calls a women's rights group a hate group and who exactly they are pushing under a bus.

From what I've seen Emily Thornberry signed it last night as she put it on her Twitter. Kier hasn't, he has signed another one, which makes it seem as if he is signing the original one.

Trans women are women. If one group of women discriminate against another group of women just because they are different then the blurred lines start. I'm personally very uncomfortable with the whole 'i'm cool with trans rights but' then comes the I don't want them in our personal spaces thing that always stems from these debates on this issue.. its not cool.

And you are right, Emily has signed it with a warning not to shut down any voices on both sides, Keir however hasn't. The LGBT Labour one he tweeted is a totally different set of pledges from an entirely different group.

Kier just signed up to the new transgender guidelines, along with the likes of RLB and Lisa Nandy, and I believe all of the candidates for leader and deputy.

These guidelines means women's rights groups are now labelled as hate groups, which is worrying, not only as a woman, but personally as a Labour supporter and someone who is wholeheartedly anti Tory, I don't see how they can ever be elected on this as many women are now leaving the party.

They actually don't. It will just target the real bigots but I can see it opening up issues.

The whole non binary debate has a very long way to go and obviously a debate about how to safeguard will be part of that.

Storm in a teacup imo. I find myself agreeing a bit with this

@PatrickStrud
"We're not transphobic, we just think you're a danger to children, women, society, lesbians, gay men, feminism, yourselves, and should be excluded from everywhere we decide you shouldn't be, and should be denied treatment, demonised, pathologised, ridiculed + debated endlessly."

Also Thornberry and Starmer haven't actually signed up to it, only Nandy and Long Bailey.

8. Organise and fight against transphobic organisations such as Women's Place UK, LGB Alliance and other trans-exclusionist hate groups.

What about this doesn't label them a hate group? It's called a hate group right there, signing up and agreeing to that is saying it's a hate group.

As to the quotes, I don't see anyone calling trans people a danger to everyone or demonising them, but these rules open women's spaces up to potential abuses everywhere, and to deny that is quite strange.

If they are targeting another minority group for being a minority that would class as hate but like I said, the whole debate has a long way to go. It will be 10 years at least before anything like that becomes law and there would be many changes made to it before we got to that.

I also think you've confused LCTR Labour. and LGBT Labour. Its LCTR pushing this, neither Starmer or Thornberry as far as I am aware have signed up to this.

They don't target a minority group tough, they just advocate for women's rights, so it's hard to define that as hate. I don't think it's just it being in law though, it's what it says that they've signed this that calls a women's rights group a hate group and who exactly they are pushing under a bus.

From what I've seen Emily Thornberry signed it last night as she put it on her Twitter. Kier hasn't, he has signed another one, which makes it seem as if he is signing the original one.

Trans women are women. If one group of women discriminate against another group of women just because they are different then the blurred lines start. I'm personally very uncomfortable with the whole 'i'm cool with trans rights but' then comes the I don't want them in our personal spaces thing that always stems from these debates on this issue.. its not cool.

And you are right, Emily has signed it with a warning not to shut down any voices on both sides, Keir however hasn't. The LGBT Labour one he tweeted is a totally different set of pledges from an entirely different group.

Is there not a blurring of lines when we conflate sex and gender and mix up sex based rights with gender ID?

There's massive blind spots in blanket statements of trans women are women without that really meaning anything at all and there being no definition and being afraid to ask for one. Women's only shelters exist for a very real reason, it's not in the abstract, do you not think it's cool to at least discuss who has access to them?

Kier just signed up to the new transgender guidelines, along with the likes of RLB and Lisa Nandy, and I believe all of the candidates for leader and deputy.

These guidelines means women's rights groups are now labelled as hate groups, which is worrying, not only as a woman, but personally as a Labour supporter and someone who is wholeheartedly anti Tory, I don't see how they can ever be elected on this as many women are now leaving the party.

They actually don't. It will just target the real bigots but I can see it opening up issues.

The whole non binary debate has a very long way to go and obviously a debate about how to safeguard will be part of that.

Storm in a teacup imo. I find myself agreeing a bit with this

@PatrickStrud
"We're not transphobic, we just think you're a danger to children, women, society, lesbians, gay men, feminism, yourselves, and should be excluded from everywhere we decide you shouldn't be, and should be denied treatment, demonised, pathologised, ridiculed + debated endlessly."

Also Thornberry and Starmer haven't actually signed up to it, only Nandy and Long Bailey.

8. Organise and fight against transphobic organisations such as Women's Place UK, LGB Alliance and other trans-exclusionist hate groups.

What about this doesn't label them a hate group? It's called a hate group right there, signing up and agreeing to that is saying it's a hate group.

As to the quotes, I don't see anyone calling trans people a danger to everyone or demonising them, but these rules open women's spaces up to potential abuses everywhere, and to deny that is quite strange.

If they are targeting another minority group for being a minority that would class as hate but like I said, the whole debate has a long way to go. It will be 10 years at least before anything like that becomes law and there would be many changes made to it before we got to that.

I also think you've confused LCTR Labour. and LGBT Labour. Its LCTR pushing this, neither Starmer or Thornberry as far as I am aware have signed up to this.

They don't target a minority group tough, they just advocate for women's rights, so it's hard to define that as hate. I don't think it's just it being in law though, it's what it says that they've signed this that calls a women's rights group a hate group and who exactly they are pushing under a bus.

From what I've seen Emily Thornberry signed it last night as she put it on her Twitter. Kier hasn't, he has signed another one, which makes it seem as if he is signing the original one.

Trans women are women. If one group of women discriminate against another group of women just because they are different then the blurred lines start. I'm personally very uncomfortable with the whole 'i'm cool with trans rights but' then comes the I don't want them in our personal spaces thing that always stems from these debates on this issue.. its not cool.

And you are right, Emily has signed it with a warning not to shut down any voices on both sides, Keir however hasn't. The LGBT Labour one he tweeted is a totally different set of pledges from an entirely different group.

Is there not a blurring of lines when we conflate sex and gender and mix up sex based rights with gender ID?

There's massive blind spots in blanket statements of trans women are women without that really meaning anything at all and there being no definition and being afraid to ask for one. Women's only shelters exist for a very real reason, it's not in the abstract, do you not think it's cool to at least discuss who has access to them?

Well yes and that will be the whole point of a wider consultation on this. Like I said, any new law on this scale is 10 years away and it would be tweaked and safeguards in place to make sure its not open to abuse. I'll say it again, trans women are women.

In other news. Thornberry needs 3 CLPs today and she makes the final ballot.

Of all of the topics on this forum there are only a handful which I never get involved with - one is the Israel/Palestine situation and the other is gender/sex politics as I don't understand either and know whatever I say will surely offend someone. So I keep quiet.

Of all of the topics on this forum there are only a handful which I never get involved with - one is the Israel/Palestine situation and the other is gender/sex politics as I don't understand either and know whatever I say will surely offend someone. So I keep quiet.

I always stay clear of the trans threads too. I only commented on this issue as its come up here. Self ID obviously is an issue people will be split on but we are a long way off anything like that even becoming law, if it ever does which I doubt it will. However trans women are women and trans men are men. No ifs and no buts. Discrimination comes in many forms and I'm not comfortable at all with any kind of suggestion that trans people are sexual predators who women aren't safe around. Its like the hurtful myth that gay men are paedophiles.

Kier just signed up to the new transgender guidelines, along with the likes of RLB and Lisa Nandy, and I believe all of the candidates for leader and deputy.

These guidelines means women's rights groups are now labelled as hate groups, which is worrying, not only as a woman, but personally as a Labour supporter and someone who is wholeheartedly anti Tory, I don't see how they can ever be elected on this as many women are now leaving the party.

Transphobic groups such as woman's Place started in the Labour Party. The treatment of Lily Madigan and how the likes of Dr Radfem were left to fester is one of the biggest reasons I've said Labour need to sort out their isms.
. I'm glad that this is finally happening as groups and places like mumsnet and Resisters and the rest are not far off terrorist groups in terms of rhetoric.

Non of them seem to want to actually fight for women's rights, sort period poverty work on dv amongst Lesbians or sort out days off for period pain/endo etc as not counted as sick.

Instead they view all trans people as the enemy. See the Always debacle and are more concerned in mirroring the thing they claim to despise in gender hierarchy.
They are in the main also biphobic and are anti anything that isn't pure..

Of all of the topics on this forum there are only a handful which I never get involved with - one is the Israel/Palestine situation and the other is gender/sex politics as I don't understand either and know whatever I say will surely offend someone. So I keep quiet.

I always stay clear of the trans threads too. I only commented on this issue as its come up here. Self ID obviously is an issue people will be split on but we are a long way off anything like that even becoming law, if it ever does which I doubt it will. However trans women are women and trans men are men. No ifs and no buts. Discrimination comes in many forms and I'm not comfortable at all with any kind of suggestion that trans people are sexual predators who women aren't safe around. Its like the hurtful myth that gay men are paedophiles.

Nandy continues to impress but I'm now of the conclusion this is one leadership election too early for her. What ever happens with Starmer - whom I'm convinced has already won this, I think Nandy is now in prime position to be his eventual successor. Lets just hope Labour are in power before that happens though rather than it coming off the back of another defeat.

So maybe Keir will eliminate most of Boris's majority in 2024. Then in May 2029 Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (sorry, nearly said Rishi Sharma ) will lose the General Election to an incoming Labour Prime Minister, 49-year old Lisa Nandy.

There is a televised leadership debate on Newsnight atm, Starmer, Nandy and Thornberry all doing well. RLB just seems lightweight compared to them.

As always, not one of them (except maybe Nandy) seems to want to lay any blame on JC for the election defeat. How many times have we heard traditional Labour voters saying they could not vote for labour because of JC. Not sure I ever heard them say they could not vote for labour because of Brexit, which is often used as the scapegoat.

And yet 12 million people voted for Corbyn in 2017, and a still not-utterly-dismal 10.3 million voted for him in 2019, in spite of the intervening two years of continual attacks and demonization.

It is almost like the "I can't possibly vote for Corbyn" stories were part of a self-perpetuating and ultimately self-realising campaign by the media in a desperate attempt to make itself seem relevant and generate revenue ....

Never mind the points. Feel the goal difference.

If you'd bothered to read the discussion before trotting out your tired and predictable stock 'witticism' you'd have seen my comment was in response to "How many times have we heard traditional Labour voters saying they could not vote for labour because of JC." So pointing out hat Corbyn wasn't at all toxic in 2017, and probably only became toxic in 2019 after a sustained effort to destroy him, is perfectly relevant.

But hey, I know you only have three or four stock comments to contribute, so knock yourself out.

How many Labour MPs were elected under Corbyn? Isn't that the most relevant metric? The second most relevant metric being, how many Tory MPs were elected during Corbyn's reign?

Who was the better Labour leader, Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn?

In this century, Jeremy has been the better Labour leader. Labour got more votes in 2017 & 2019 than 2001 & 2005 respectively.

There is a televised leadership debate on Newsnight atm, Starmer, Nandy and Thornberry all doing well. RLB just seems lightweight compared to them.

As always, not one of them (except maybe Nandy) seems to want to lay any blame on JC for the election defeat. How many times have we heard traditional Labour voters saying they could not vote for labour because of JC. Not sure I ever heard them say they could not vote for labour because of Brexit, which is often used as the scapegoat.

And yet 12 million people voted for Corbyn in 2017, and a still not-utterly-dismal 10.3 million voted for him in 2019, in spite of the intervening two years of continual attacks and demonization.

It is almost like the "I can't possibly vote for Corbyn" stories were part of a self-perpetuating and ultimately self-realising campaign by the media in a desperate attempt to make itself seem relevant and generate revenue ....

Never mind the points. Feel the goal difference.

If you'd bothered to read the discussion before trotting out your tired and predictable stock 'witticism' you'd have seen my comment was in response to "How many times have we heard traditional Labour voters saying they could not vote for labour because of JC." So pointing out hat Corbyn wasn't at all toxic in 2017, and probably only became toxic in 2019 after a sustained effort to destroy him, is perfectly relevant.

But hey, I know you only have three or four stock comments to contribute, so knock yourself out.

How many Labour MPs were elected under Corbyn? Isn't that the most relevant metric? The second most relevant metric being, how many Tory MPs were elected during Corbyn's reign?

Who was the better Labour leader, Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn?

In this century, Jeremy has been the better Labour leader. Labour got more votes in 2017 & 2019 than 2001 & 2005 respectively.

So he should stay on and just one more push...

Who knows, the Corbyn 19 virus might bring the population decrease down to such a point where he can claim to be the most popular ever before mankind was wiped out

Nandy continues to impress but I'm now of the conclusion this is one leadership election too early for her. What ever happens with Starmer - whom I'm convinced has already won this, I think Nandy is now in prime position to be his eventual successor. Lets just hope Labour are in power before that happens though rather than it coming off the back of another defeat.

Agreed. Nandy is showing real promise and actual talent. Starmer will do for now I think, let him steady things and keep Johnson honest (stop sniggering at the back...), but have her in a prominent role with a view to taking over, maybe even before the next election.

There is a televised leadership debate on Newsnight atm, Starmer, Nandy and Thornberry all doing well. RLB just seems lightweight compared to them.

As always, not one of them (except maybe Nandy) seems to want to lay any blame on JC for the election defeat. How many times have we heard traditional Labour voters saying they could not vote for labour because of JC. Not sure I ever heard them say they could not vote for labour because of Brexit, which is often used as the scapegoat.

And yet 12 million people voted for Corbyn in 2017, and a still not-utterly-dismal 10.3 million voted for him in 2019, in spite of the intervening two years of continual attacks and demonization.

It is almost like the "I can't possibly vote for Corbyn" stories were part of a self-perpetuating and ultimately self-realising campaign by the media in a desperate attempt to make itself seem relevant and generate revenue ....

Never mind the points. Feel the goal difference.

If you'd bothered to read the discussion before trotting out your tired and predictable stock 'witticism' you'd have seen my comment was in response to "How many times have we heard traditional Labour voters saying they could not vote for labour because of JC." So pointing out hat Corbyn wasn't at all toxic in 2017, and probably only became toxic in 2019 after a sustained effort to destroy him, is perfectly relevant.

But hey, I know you only have three or four stock comments to contribute, so knock yourself out.

How many Labour MPs were elected under Corbyn? Isn't that the most relevant metric? The second most relevant metric being, how many Tory MPs were elected during Corbyn's reign?

Who was the better Labour leader, Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn?

In this century, Jeremy has been the better Labour leader. Labour got more votes in 2017 & 2019 than 2001 & 2005 respectively.

You're right about 2001 vs 2017, though the Labour percentage was down. But:

There is a televised leadership debate on Newsnight atm, Starmer, Nandy and Thornberry all doing well. RLB just seems lightweight compared to them.

As always, not one of them (except maybe Nandy) seems to want to lay any blame on JC for the election defeat. How many times have we heard traditional Labour voters saying they could not vote for labour because of JC. Not sure I ever heard them say they could not vote for labour because of Brexit, which is often used as the scapegoat.

And yet 12 million people voted for Corbyn in 2017, and a still not-utterly-dismal 10.3 million voted for him in 2019, in spite of the intervening two years of continual attacks and demonization.

It is almost like the "I can't possibly vote for Corbyn" stories were part of a self-perpetuating and ultimately self-realising campaign by the media in a desperate attempt to make itself seem relevant and generate revenue ....

Never mind the points. Feel the goal difference.

If you'd bothered to read the discussion before trotting out your tired and predictable stock 'witticism' you'd have seen my comment was in response to "How many times have we heard traditional Labour voters saying they could not vote for labour because of JC." So pointing out hat Corbyn wasn't at all toxic in 2017, and probably only became toxic in 2019 after a sustained effort to destroy him, is perfectly relevant.

But hey, I know you only have three or four stock comments to contribute, so knock yourself out.

How many Labour MPs were elected under Corbyn? Isn't that the most relevant metric? The second most relevant metric being, how many Tory MPs were elected during Corbyn's reign?

Who was the better Labour leader, Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn?

In this century, Jeremy has been the better Labour leader. Labour got more votes in 2017 & 2019 than 2001 & 2005 respectively.

You're right about 2001 vs 2017, though the Labour percentage was down. But:

Labour in 2005: 10,724,953
Labour in 2019: 10,269,076

I meant that I was comparing 2001 with 2017, and 2005 with 2019. Labout in 2005 only got 9,552,436 votes.

There is a televised leadership debate on Newsnight atm, Starmer, Nandy and Thornberry all doing well. RLB just seems lightweight compared to them.

As always, not one of them (except maybe Nandy) seems to want to lay any blame on JC for the election defeat. How many times have we heard traditional Labour voters saying they could not vote for labour because of JC. Not sure I ever heard them say they could not vote for labour because of Brexit, which is often used as the scapegoat.

And yet 12 million people voted for Corbyn in 2017, and a still not-utterly-dismal 10.3 million voted for him in 2019, in spite of the intervening two years of continual attacks and demonization.

It is almost like the "I can't possibly vote for Corbyn" stories were part of a self-perpetuating and ultimately self-realising campaign by the media in a desperate attempt to make itself seem relevant and generate revenue ....

Never mind the points. Feel the goal difference.

If you'd bothered to read the discussion before trotting out your tired and predictable stock 'witticism' you'd have seen my comment was in response to "How many times have we heard traditional Labour voters saying they could not vote for labour because of JC." So pointing out hat Corbyn wasn't at all toxic in 2017, and probably only became toxic in 2019 after a sustained effort to destroy him, is perfectly relevant.

But hey, I know you only have three or four stock comments to contribute, so knock yourself out.

How many Labour MPs were elected under Corbyn? Isn't that the most relevant metric? The second most relevant metric being, how many Tory MPs were elected during Corbyn's reign?

Who was the better Labour leader, Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn?

In this century, Jeremy has been the better Labour leader. Labour got more votes in 2017 & 2019 than 2001 & 2005 respectively.

You're right about 2001 vs 2017, though the Labour percentage was down. But:

Labour in 2005: 10,724,953
Labour in 2019: 10,269,076

I meant that I was comparing 2001 with 2017, and 2005 with 2019. Labout in 2005 only got 9,552,436 votes.